The BBC conspires not only to keep climate change critics off the air but to smear, undermine and denigrate them and their views as much as possible, going so far as to claim they are in need of psychiatric help.

However when you look at the outbursts from, and the extreme views of, many climate ‘believer’ advocates you might begin to wonder just who it is that might be in need of some form of help.

There is a massive ‘industry’ devoted to communicating the ‘Truth’ about global warming….much of that at first driven by the BBC’s Roger Harrabin along with his side kick Dr Joe Smith in the famous CMEP seminars. The ‘Science’ has been sidelined now…the policy is to accept it…and the new project is to make the Public believe…not the science but the ‘fact’ global warming is man made.

Every BBC programme is now on standby to push that message in any way possible.

Part of that is as I said to destroy the credibility and authority of any ‘Sceptic’….but Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies says ‘... for climate science, experts (pro AGW scientists) being activists can actually lessen their credibility.’

Seems that’s not the case for the BBC.

When you read the below you might wonder when the BBC will start to think perhaps these scientists aren’t perhaps the disinterested scientific parties they proclaim to be and are prepared to say and do anything to make sure only their views are heard.

As an aside have a look at the Royal Society’s website and see who has been recently elected to become ‘Fellows’ under the Presidency of Sir Paul Nurse (Another BBC favourite climate fanatic):

Paul Ehrlich….a biologist but fanatical climate change advocate.

Ralph Cicerone….the scientist who ‘turned’ David Attenborough and made him believe.

Steve Jones…..another fanatical climate change advocate….his new stature might raise a few eyebrows as he admitted himself that he was washed up as a scientist…and only rescued from obscurity by the BBC….a debt which he has amply repaid.
It is curious that the RS say that it is his contribution as a ‘communicator’ on science that has caught their eye…and yet it is Jones who demands the BBC silence all those who have differing views on climate to those of the ‘Consensus’. Ironic no?

Makes you wonder what the real reasons for making them Fellows of the RS were.

The Royal Society’s motto?Nullius in verba, Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”

Bishop Hill casts an eye over Ehrlich’s Twitter comments and suggests that they go beyond reasoned or rational….you might think Ehrlich could be dangerous if given a free hand as he dismisses climate sceptics as mentally retarded morons and idiots, sexist, racist, anti-scientific or worse…Republican….or Murdoch…‘murdering our grandkids for profit’:

Going back to his Tweets on the WSJ, why might Ehrlich hate what’s being written in the WSJ? Could it be he has a personal grudge after he (and the scientific consensus of the time) was shown to be entirely wrong about population growth and takes badly to criticism?:

‘The fall in the birth rate is a largely voluntary phenomenon. It has happened just as fast in countries with no coercive population policy as it has in China, with its Draconian two-child law. The demands for coercion that were common in the 1970s—”Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” wrote Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren in 1977—seem embarrassing in retrospect.Birth rates have gone down because of prosperity, not poverty.’

Or this one:

‘On the eve of that decade, Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich opened his best-selling book “The Population Bomb” with this sunny declaration: “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Of course, nothing of the kind happened.‘

Ehrlich is an advocate not just for Climate change but, as you read above, for population control:

‘Some precautionary steps that should be considered include moving as rapidly as possible to humanely reduce the human population size.’

‘Humanely’…that’s good.

Here he reveals what is going on when the BBC invites in psychologists to pass judgement on climate sceptics and denounce them as in need of psychiatric treatment…..a collaboration of different scientific spheres aimed at attacking those who dissent:

‘We know that simply informing people of the scientific consensus on a serious problem does not ordinarily produce rapid changes in institutional or individual behaviour…..there is a need for natural scientists to collaborate with social scientists, especially those who study the dynamics of social movements. Such collaborations could develop ways to stimulate a significant increase in popular support for decisive and immediate action on the predicament. Without significant pressure from the public demanding action, we fear there is little chance of changing course fast enough to forestall disaster.’

David Attenborough also thinks along Ehrlich’s lines on population:‘He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.’

‘In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions.

That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. ‘

Do you see a common theme here…climate change and population control….and extreme measures to ‘solve’ the problem.

“We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized…..the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.”

And not just those with undesirable physical or mental attributes but those who dissent from the conventional thought of the day will be eradicated.

It’s not a great leap from what Ehrlich suggests, in particular the manner of his expressing his views, which might lead you to think you would not want to give him or his ilk the power of life and death. Such fanatical views only lead one place however ‘well intentioned’.

Whilst good sport and a bit of a laugh, can’t help but notice that when the BBC get spotlighted on something serious, a pink puff-story gets floated to stir up the masses and all is well (like on threads here).
The real stuff gets forgotten (NHS, 3.5 degrees, McAlpine, etc) and they also have a bit of victim of a nutter ammo in ‘balance’ to wave about.
Job done.

And in the spirit of sharing:“To all you bigots who are “tried of having Gay ramped down your throats” a very poor choice of words by the way. Or those who ” I don’t have a problem with gays” when clearly you do. All this “prat” (your words) is doing is stating homosexuality is found in all animals, and we are animals. Just because we stand upright and can type bigoted remarks on a computer does not make you better. Sir David is ignoring this aspect of in the show, which is all he states. Perhaps if you people open a book, and not that fairy tale called the bible you might learn something. “
That sure sounds familiar.

Didn’t Ricky Gervais do a stand up routine on Gay animals?…that was from a book too…that had drawings of gay animals doing gay things….That was not proof.

There is no “Gay community” in animals, they stick their cocks into anything…male, female….don’t matter…dogs shag any leg they can find…so what are they?…”Leggers”….pffffft.

Why do they shag anything?….easy answer…they don’t have hands…they can’t wank, apart from primates, and not all of them hang about in studded caps and arseless leather trousers…they still hump female primates.

What gets me with the BBC, is that when there is plenty of snow and the weather is freezing: even for a week or more and years after we were told by ‘scientist’ that global warming will be up at least 5.3degrees in less than 100 years. When they cannot predict the next day accurately. They still put global rubbish lies in almost all programmes. The sad thing is many still believe it.

“Pop will eat itself” goes the phrase!
So it is that I`m listening to “Feedback” on Radio 4…hardly Robert Robinsons “Points of View”….but it`s OK.
To hear the compliance officer(whoever he was) explain why Mary McCartney is OK on You and Yours, but why Paul McCartneys puff for his ex-wifes burgers is not was wonderful.
File under U2s “Day for their New LP” on February 2009….but there`s now a ludicrous feel to the BBC…as if Roger Bolton has decided to scuttle the ship.
There is contradiction and ludicrous clashes all over the shop….time to abandon any pretence of BBC competence and coherence…just a paid laff from salford.
So why are we still opening our veins and letting the BBC leech off us…no wonder they wanted cigarettes banned…burn the bleeders off would they not?

Sat back to watch last weeks Africa, which to be fair I’ve enjoyed.
But by the end i was applying the sack cloth and ashes, also getting the wife to whip me unconscious so fed up was i by the constant referral to ‘global warming’.

The bit I love about the new eugenicists like Attaboy and the Elders is their ability to keep one fact quiet ! given that developed country’s have been for years coping with falling populations , and that the higher birth rates are among poor African and eastern populations so then they must ultimately be the target of any ‘humane ‘ controls by the hideously white ‘lurvies against humans party ‘
It all very colonial for me a bit too saving the foreign savage and controlling the rough beasts of the dark continent ? now I thought the BBC was against all that old empire stuff? !!

Is it just coincidence that population control – in the form of baby licences – is also featured in UN Agenda 21, the blueprint for a world eco-socialist totalitarian government? Not really, as ALL the ‘mitigating actions’ the environmentalists at the IPCC have come up with to combat global warming are in there. It’s bugger all to do with science and everything to do with politics, and the likes of Ehrlich, as well as Rose, Gore, Miliband, Obama, the EU, the BBC etc etc etc are all signed up to it.